Zelezny Chucks wrote:Think it's a long bow to draw to compare this argument with politics or general engineering. Obviously innovation is a good thing but I can guarantee you that improvements that were made to the Model T were done with a goal in mind. i.e. make it faster, safer, more durable.
If you can honestly come up with a good reason to improve the ball by all means do it but I fail to see why something needs to change if there isn't and end goal in mind for it.
Kicking the ball longer would completely change the way the game is played, do we then decide that bigger ovals are needed to play on?
As an example, the decision to make all head high contact awarded, or in some cases maybe we should say "rewarded", with a free kick probably (I can't be @rsed finding stats) increased the incidences of head high contact due to players manipulating the rule to their advantage. It could then be argued that this had a flow on effect to the laughable situation we are now in when people who are genuinely contesting the ball are getting rubbed out for incidental contact as another way the powers that be are influencing the game when their initial attempt actually exacerbated the problem.
I think the only one that would genuinely improve the game would be a completely waterproof ball to make wet weather footy a better spectactle and probable save some cash in increasing durability of a ball. I honestly think if Sherrin had the ability to do this without changing the grip or other properties of the ball they would have!
I get your point about innovation being a good thing in general but I don't think you can apply it with a blanket rule to all situations.
Thanks for giving me a topic to rant on about I have been bored as **** at work this arvo.
you came up with most of the reasons already - more durable, easier to kick, kick further, consistency of distance, easier to see on TV, etc etc etc
Posted: Tue Jun 03, 2014 2:41 am